We need new campaigns

God_flakes · November 2016

TF has become WTF. It seems the same holds true for the others. Can we get some new names, new attitudes and some different GvGvG strats? It's the same thing night after night. Come on, guize.

Alucardo · November 2016

There really needs to be incentive to use different campaigns. At the moment the bulk of people just jam themselves into Trueflame. On EU, it works like this

- Haderus is used primarily for tel var/Emperor farming by all factions. Usually one at a time.
- Spellbreaker is used by EP for Emperor achievements and IC farming
- Trueflame is basically where everyone goes for normal PVP, so it's generally laggy af
- Azuras seems fairly well balanced and not as laggy as Trueflame, even when the population is high.

From that information you'd think I would frequent Azuras more than anywhere else, but I'm not a fan of the play style there. It's full of snipers and proc sets to get the biggest bang for your buck with the lack of CPs.
PVP is stagnant and needs something. What that is, though, I have no idea. Going back in time would be the best fix, but we all know that won't happen.

PenguinInACan · November 2016

Alucardo wrote: »

There really needs to be incentive to use different campaigns. At the moment the bulk of people just jam themselves into Trueflame. On EU, it works like this

- Haderus is used primarily for tel var/Emperor farming by all factions. Usually one at a time.
- Spellbreaker is used by EP for Emperor achievements and IC farming
- Trueflame is basically where everyone goes for normal PVP, so it's generally laggy af
- Azuras seems fairly well balanced and not as laggy as Trueflame, even when the population is high.

From that information you'd think I would frequent Azuras more than anywhere else, but I'm not a fan of the play style there. It's full of snipers and proc sets to get the biggest bang for your buck with the lack of CPs.
PVP is stagnant and needs something. What that is, though, I have no idea. Going back in time would be the best fix, but we all know that won't happen.

At least EU has 4 vet campaigns...I still don't understand why ZOS decided to reduce NA to 3 vet campaigns while keeping 4 on EU.

God_flakes · November 2016

PenguinInACan wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

There really needs to be incentive to use different campaigns. At the moment the bulk of people just jam themselves into Trueflame. On EU, it works like this

- Haderus is used primarily for tel var/Emperor farming by all factions. Usually one at a time.
- Spellbreaker is used by EP for Emperor achievements and IC farming
- Trueflame is basically where everyone goes for normal PVP, so it's generally laggy af
- Azuras seems fairly well balanced and not as laggy as Trueflame, even when the population is high.

From that information you'd think I would frequent Azuras more than anywhere else, but I'm not a fan of the play style there. It's full of snipers and proc sets to get the biggest bang for your buck with the lack of CPs.
PVP is stagnant and needs something. What that is, though, I have no idea. Going back in time would be the best fix, but we all know that won't happen.

At least EU has 4 vet campaigns...I still don't understand why ZOS decided to reduce NA to 3 vet campaigns while keeping 4 on EU.

Probably because Na has declining pvp participation-and EU doesn't yet....yet. If they keep it up eu will lose players as well.

PenguinInACan · November 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

There really needs to be incentive to use different campaigns. At the moment the bulk of people just jam themselves into Trueflame. On EU, it works like this

- Haderus is used primarily for tel var/Emperor farming by all factions. Usually one at a time.
- Spellbreaker is used by EP for Emperor achievements and IC farming
- Trueflame is basically where everyone goes for normal PVP, so it's generally laggy af
- Azuras seems fairly well balanced and not as laggy as Trueflame, even when the population is high.

From that information you'd think I would frequent Azuras more than anywhere else, but I'm not a fan of the play style there. It's full of snipers and proc sets to get the biggest bang for your buck with the lack of CPs.
PVP is stagnant and needs something. What that is, though, I have no idea. Going back in time would be the best fix, but we all know that won't happen.

At least EU has 4 vet campaigns...I still don't understand why ZOS decided to reduce NA to 3 vet campaigns while keeping 4 on EU.

Probably because Na has declining pvp participation-and EU doesn't yet....yet. If they keep it up eu will lose players as well.

I don't really know the population differences between EU and NA, but I do know ZOS didn't establish an official EU server outside of the US until recently....so it is possible EU has some stiffer hardware supporting a higher load of server connects. Although with the lag we have been experiencing on NA (at least in TF lately) one would think allocating some server resources to another campaign could significantly increase performance. (regardless of actual game server population balance).

I for one would be totally okay with another server opening up and reopening the days of buff servers (which is the usual result of more non-competitive campaigns). I had the most fun in PvP fighting against local buff server populations.

RinaldoGandolphi · November 2016

They need to bring back Wabbajack or Dawnbreaker...give us a 90 day campaign again ZOS...or bring back Chillrend

AzuraKin · November 2016

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to bring back Wabbajack or Dawnbreaker...give us a 90 day campaign again ZOS...or bring back Chillrend

dude why would anyone want a 90 day campaign? 30 days is good enough for a long based strategic campaign and you have a 7 day short campaign.

God_flakes · November 2016

AzuraKin wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to bring back Wabbajack or Dawnbreaker...give us a 90 day campaign again ZOS...or bring back Chillrend

dude why would anyone want a 90 day campaign? 30 days is good enough for a long based strategic campaign and you have a 7 day short campaign.

To see who has true focus and who doesn't.

AzuraKin · November 2016

rofl you already have a test on focus on a 30 day campaign. you can make 1m ap in 1 week without even pushing for it. that means 4m ap in a 30 day campaign. that position 4 on average on leaderboards. and that without requiring to be a good player, just an active one.

frozywozy · November 2016

Before we open new campaigns, Zenimax needs to reduce population caps to what 3bars actually is, and then open an additional 30days campaign when needed. Preferably with scrolls worth 5 points.

RinaldoGandolphi · November 2016

AzuraKin wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to bring back Wabbajack or Dawnbreaker...give us a 90 day campaign again ZOS...or bring back Chillrend

dude why would anyone want a 90 day campaign? 30 days is good enough for a long based strategic campaign and you have a 7 day short campaign.

If you played on the Wabbajack you would know

God_flakes · November 2016

AzuraKin wrote: »

rofl you already have a test on focus on a 30 day campaign. you can make 1m ap in 1 week without even pushing for it. that means 4m ap in a 30 day campaign. that position 4 on average on leaderboards. and that without requiring to be a good player, just an active one.

Who cares about ap?!? I'm a filthy mediocre casual and I'm sitting my pretty butt on millions! Nothing to spend it on.

We need to care about the campaign again. Nobody cares about TF anymore, it's obvious. We need a campaign shake up.

IxSTALKERxI · November 2016

frozywozy wrote: »

Before we open new campaigns, Zenimax needs to reduce population caps to what 3bars actually is

^This. Current lock pop is slightly too much imo. If some prime time presence went to haderus pvp would be pretty good. I personally have to stay trueflame though for oceanic time zone.

I also don't get the scoring for haderus, it's not like it promotes fighting on resources like who cares. I think scoring should be same as trueflame, maybe also 30 day campaign. 7 day campaigns seem to promote emp flipping on resets.

Rohamad_Ali · November 2016

We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .

Iyas · November 2016

We have to close campaigns on EU. Too few ppl playing atm

IxSTALKERxI · November 2016

Here's another idea.

New campaign which special rule is it's only open from the hours of 4pm EST to 12pm EST.

Oceanic players such as myself will still play on 24/7 campaign trueflame, along with a lot of american players. But some american players may only play during primetime and may choose to home the other server - splitting up the primetime population.

Publius_Scipio · November 2016

Um Haderus?

Kram8ion · November 2016

Scrapping home campaign idea for same alliance maybe so you can go to any campaign on one alliance

FENGRUSH · November 2016

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Here's another idea.

New campaign which special rule is it's only open from the hours of 4pm EST to 12pm EST.

Oceanic players such as myself will still play on 24/7 campaign trueflame, along with a lot of american players. But some american players may only play during primetime and may choose to home the other server - splitting up the primetime population.

Ive thought of something really similar from another game. This would be so good. People generally dont care about the map because it changes when they log off literally in an hour or two, it can all flip.

This sums up Haderus PC NA. Fight outnumbered against EP with emp, they lose fights. They log off and let DC dethrone. 1 hour later, they have emp while were on TF.

Great server options.

Derra · November 2016

People will not like this statement but:
They need to remove azuras so the pvp playerbase isn´t divided into two entirely different campaign styles.

bronski · November 2016

People will not like this statement but:
They need to remove cp campaigns so the pvp playerbase isn´t divided into two entirely different campaign styles.

Derra · November 2016

bronski wrote: »

People will not like this statement but:
They need to remove cp campaigns so the pvp playerbase isn´t divided into two entirely different campaign styles.

Except with that approach zos still has to balance for two "different" games essentially - which results in more work and as a consequence is less desireable.

MLRPZ · November 2016

Zos needs to close haderus and spell breaker on EU, hopefully it would make ebony blyat alive again

pcar944 · November 2016

for real

they threw everyone in basically 2 servers and called it a day

bronski · November 2016

i havent played azura in a while, but it seems to be poplocked everyday and way less laggy then tf.
you never liked no cp, and thats fine ofc. but lets not pretend that it would be for the "greater good of the game" and not because you would like another populated cp campaign beside tf.

Also before they focus on balancing they would need to decide what they want pvp in this game to be. dont see how they can balance a game thats been changing so much basically every 3 months. My feeling is they dont have a clue or dont care anymore and most of us are here waiting for the next game to move onto.

Derra · November 2016

bronski wrote: »

i havent played azura in a while, but it seems to be poplocked everyday and way less laggy then tf.
you never liked no cp, and thats fine ofc. but lets not pretend that it would be for the "greater good of the game" and not because you would like another populated cp campaign beside tf.

Also before they focus on balancing they would need to decide what they want pvp in this game to be. dont see how they can balance a game thats been changing so much basically every 3 months. My feeling is they dont have a clue or dont care anymore and most of us are here waiting for the next game to move onto.

I never liked the nonCP campaign because in my opinion they´re flawed by design. Mechanics in the game have been "balanced" and tuned to work with the CP system for almost two years now.
I happen to mainly play a class that feels the most limited out of all three i´ve played on non CP (stamblade magblade and magsorc).
Surge is basically unusable without the CP crit bonus. Shield values are tuned to a character with a magica pool modified by CP (bastion only counteracts dmg bonuses really). Shieldbreaker is a set not affected by the CP system at all (and it´s dmg is balanced around CP in place). There is no realistic way of countering it on a no CP server.

Also since 1.6 hit the pvp playerbase has been constantly declining. When i say for the greater good of the game i obviously don´t mean currently. Atleast in the evening we have azura and Tf locked for all factions.
But i don´t think this will be the case in 6 months (also on off hours its hard to find any pvp at all on both campaigns).

So i ultimately think sticking to two different campaign types - in the process dividing an already declining playerbase can only hurt the games pvp in the future. So obviously i think having two active CP campaigns are more beneficial for continued pvp possibilities than having one CP and one nonCP campaign.
From my past experiences in different games that offered multiple server types once the critical mass needed to have active pvp was no longer existant it came to a mass exodus which could only be counteracted by merging servers.
For me the nonCP server was basically setting up a second servertype into an shrinking playerbase that in the end has to be deleted again anyway because the numbers to support it will eventually cease to exist.
I have no idea why they´ve done that in the first place.

That´s why i´m saying what i´m saying.

Edit: I´d also like to have a system in place that puts everyone in a pvp campaign at the current CP cap (preferably with a 2nd cp allocation so that people can have a PvE and a cyrodiil CP tree)

bronski · November 2016

i like the idea of having people put at cp cap in pvp, that would help low cp players feel less underpowered. would personally also like the ability to repsec both cps and morphs "on the fly" at no cost. had that in another game centered around 1v1 and it made it more fun to be able to change your ebuild on the fly between rounds based on your opponent.

guess my problem is that lately i found i spend more time in game looking for good fights than actually fighting so i end up zerg surfing for a while and then log off and go play other games where the ratio between time played and time spent having fun is a bit higher. (overwatch and battlerite)

Alucardo · November 2016

Derra wrote: »

People will not like this statement but:
They need to remove azuras so the pvp playerbase isn´t divided into two entirely different campaign styles.

I somewhat agree, but a no-CP campaign was a good idea because there still are many people way below the cap. At least they can enjoy PVP without getting one-shot by a CP561 guy.
Honestly, the champion system is the worst thing this game could have implemented. I hate it.

IxSTALKERxI · November 2016

They could consider merging BWB and Azura since they are very similar. I wouldn't scrap no-cp campaigns though, they are important for new players.

Derra · November 2016

Alucardo wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

People will not like this statement but:
They need to remove azuras so the pvp playerbase isn´t divided into two entirely different campaign styles.

I somewhat agree, but a no-CP campaign was a good idea because there still are many people way below the cap. At least they can enjoy PVP without getting one-shot by a CP561 guy.
Honestly, the champion system is the worst thing this game could have implemented. I hate it.

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

They could consider merging BWB and Azura since they are very similar. I wouldn't scrap no-cp campaigns though, they are important for new players.

I personally would have created a 2nd pvp cp tree active in cyrodiil that puts you at the current cap and lets you keep a cp allocation different from the one you use in pve.
Also at CP 160 the game should offer a pvp beginners quest once per character to gain a full purple cp160 set in impenetrable in a chosen armor weight. Sets would have to be evaluated.

For example:
5 Transmutation + 5 curseeater + noname weapons as light
5 marksman + 5 shield of the valiant + noname weapons
5 alessian + 5 bastion of the heartland + noname weapons

Wollust · November 2016

Close Haderus and Spellbreaker. Make Ebony great again